Message-Id: <MAILQUEUE2-102.931011232938.480@hylkn1.Helsinki.FI>
Date:         Mon, 11 Oct 1993 17:28:00 EDT
Reply-To: protin@usl.com
Sender: vilva
From: Art Protin <protin@usl.com>
Subject:      Re: means/vehicle
To:         lojban@cuvmb.cc.columbia.edu
Content-Length: 3163
Lines: 73

Jorge quotes me and comments:

> Ok, if "means" means "explanation of why it moves/can be said to
> move", then the place doesn't prohibit the concept I have in mind,
> but it gives to {klama} a very strange meaning.

I am sorry.  I missed or forgot the description of the concept
you have in mind. I also don't follow how that "gives to {klama}
a very strange meaning".

> I say that there is a concept of movement where the means are
> not part of the concept.

Good.  Now try and articulate that concept and please be patient
with me because I don't have even the slightest hint of what that
concept would be like.

> This is what Galileo got into trouble for.

Is this a reference to the great scientist of centuries ago or
some craft name after him?

Current space craft technology gives more interesting insight to
this topic than I expected.  Rockets provide thrust for such a
very small portion of the travel time and inertia plus gravity
do the rest, being the long acting forces.  Reflecting on this,
I realize that in the microscopic view this is similar to walking.
Walking involves continuous motion by the legs but most of the
motion of the body is falling from step to step.

> If you are in a spaceship and see another spaceship passing by,
> you may say that the "means" of its going is that the two ships
> are in relative motion, but it seems a bit circular.

Of course it seems circular, but at the time it may be the most
that can be said.  This is especially true if both spaceships
are ballistic (gravity plus inetia being the only forces at work)
at that time.  And, since such a detail would provide so little
information, I would expect that the means place would be skipped
in all non-philosophical discussions aboard both spaceships.

>> The listener is not allowed to draw inference that an empty place
>> means anything more than the speaker did not opt to mention it.
>
> Agreed. But both speaker and listener should be aware that
> the place exists, in order to understand what's being said.
> (At least that's how I understand that the theory goes.)

And here again I differ with the theory.  This language needs
to be able to function without everybody knowing every place
of every gismu that might need to be used.

I concede that the concept of klama without a means place in its
structure is impoverished and a student of the language who has
not learned to have a means place does not yet fully grasp the
concept of klama.  But I believe that such a student has more to
learn about the real world than about lojban.  AND when we have
native speaking lojbanists we will have students who are
simultaneously learning both the language and the real world.

I have yet to read an adequate distinction of the concept embodied
by klama and that by cliva.  But why limit it to motion.  Please,
anybody, supply me with an example of a concept that is really,
fundamentally changed by only additional places.

    thank you all,
    Arthur Protin


Arthur Protin <protin@usl.com>
STANDARD DISCLAIMER: The views expressed are strictly those of the author and
are in no way indictative of his employer, customers, or this installation.